Character

Last week I went to a lecture on "Character". Actually, it was titled "Presidential Character and Leadership: Sex, Drugs, and Lies in the White House."

Peter Coogan, associate professor of History at Hollins University, gave the talk at The Glebe, a local retirement community.

I went because I wanted to. I really miss school sometime. I loved college.

Anyway, the gist of this lecture was that in the 20th century, the presidents have been either good or bad for the country, and in looking at their character and integrity, it seems the bad presidents have been good guys who didn't cheat on their wives, but were lousy at leading. The good presidents slept with every woman they met, but were able to solve problems so that the country could move forward.

Our current president fell among the "bad" presidents. I imagine that suprises no one who looks at poll ratings these days.

The professor did not define character except to look at the 20th century presidents in terms of marital fidelity, substance abuse use, military service, integrity (did the president lie to the public), and health (did the president lie about his health).

Character (and integrity) are nebulous words, I think. We call someone a "character" when they stand out. But we say a person has "character" when they are morally intact. We expect a church leader, for instance, to have character, not necessarily be a character.
With elections, character often comes into play. This person has more character than the other. Generally they mean something like, "he inhaled and I didn't," or something along those lines.

The 2008 presidential election seemsto have a slate full of characters. The professor indicated we've boiled our elections down to voting for someone with similiar values (someone with good moral character) or a problem solver (someone who will fix the economy, or end a war). The problem solvers apparently have no qualms about doing, well, whatever.

We will have local elections this year and will be choosing new Botetourt supervisors. This question of "character" versus "problem solver" probably has local ramifications as well. As far as I know, our supervisors are generally folks of character and integrity who live morally and socially proper lives. They work hard to raise their families and to direct the county in a manner they believe proper.

Three of those seats will be up for election. Word on the street is at least one, if not two, of those seats will have no incumbent running for office.

That means a massive turnover for a board that has, for the most part, been steady and quiet at the helm of the county for at least a decade.

We will be having a change. Will it be a change of character? Will we have candidates running who are of fine moral fiber but unable to solve our problems? Can they identify the county's problems? Will they see growth as a problem, or will they see the county's efforts to rein in growth as the problem? Do they want a Walmart in Buchanan? Will they allow a methadone clinic at the corner of Country Club and U.S. 220?

This will be a big year for this county. Our character will change. I hope the citizenry pays attention. I hope, at least, they vote.